A month's detention for the suspect who injured three people in Pec

By the date 02.01.2021, about 21:02 minutes, in Pec, right in front of the damaged, deliberately, and because of earlier and inconsistent disputes between defendants and injured US. D, A.D. and F.D., the defendant has attempted to deprive the life of the injured A.D., in a way that once it comes to arguing and fighting between defendants and the injured, the defendant at one point pulls out his pistol from his belt and shoots at the injured by causing dangerous body injuries for life and then leaves the scene.

By these actions, defendant M. The RR allegedly carried out the remaining attempted murder of Article 172 over KPRK's 28th article, heavy bodily injury by Article 186 par.3 related to par.1 KPRK points and ownership, control or unauthorized possession of weapons by Article 366 par.1 of KPRC.

The defendants have been assigned the detention measure for a (1) month after the court estimated there is doubt that the same was committed by the criminal acts suspected and that during the investigative procedure the same risk could be heard in the wake of the video recording eventually could be heard even by any witness present at the scene, so that with the possible finding of the defendant at freedom, there is the same danger in the direction of changing their statements, and thereby preventing the normal flow of the procedure. The court, the appointment of the detention measure, also argues that with the finding of the defendant in freedom, there is reason to believe that the same could eliminate, conceal, or change criminal evidence. Also, the weight of committing criminal acts, the way and circumstances of committing criminal acts in the center of the city where a large number of people are frequented, as well as strained reports between defendants and injury, indicate the real danger that with possible finding defendants in freedom, the same could end the attempted criminal work or perform some work of the same nature.

The court praised other alternative measures for the security of the defendant's presence in the procedure, but it estimated that no alternative measure would be adequate at the stage of the procedure.

Against this decision the dissatisfied side has the right to complaint at the Court of Appeals.